This is a continuation of a blog published in April 2018, and located here. In that post, we discussed the history and responsibility of balloting. Here, we’ll continue with the idea of being blackballed and the repercussions of such an event.

There are diverse attitudes to being blackballed. Some rebel to the idea that any one or any group can “shun” or “refuse” them what they seek. The idea of being blackballed is considered archaic, as if there is anything that could stop someone in our modern age from achieving what they want to achieve. To be blackballed is a singularly terrible event that should never, ever happen. There’s the view that being blackballed is akin to a formal shunning or being ostracized, whence some of this history derives, and to be blackballed is a stain on your character. Another point of view is that there is a “gang” of people who may be against you, actively working to stop you from achieving your goals. How many times have we heard, “the election is rigged?”

In other words, being blackballed is rarely caused by the person being blackballed; it is a misperception of their character, deliberate malice to stop a rising star, or punishment for some sort of wrong doing. The person blackballed sees themselves as blameless as they didn’t do the actual casting of the ballot. That is, the reason for the blackballing or the loss is viewed through their very personal lens. Modern conventional wisdom holds that ostracism is usually meant to hurt or punish people rather than support the good of society. In modern times, it is viewed as bad for the morale of a group; in ancient times, the good of the society was paramount. In short, it’s fair to say that most modern people feel that being blackballed is a very bad thing.

Perhaps we can throw a wrench in this. Perhaps we can look at being blackballed as something positive. Stanford University recently did a news story on a recent study focused on being ostracized. Interestingly enough, the researchers found that the exclusion, or being ostracized, allowed individual groups to stop bullying, stop the exploitation of “good” people, and generally allowed the group to reform the one being excluded.

The study concluded that gossip and ostracism are part of human nature and that without them, we might not as easily reform the behavior of people who don’t play well with others. In fact, those who want to be part of the group but don’t play well with others might benefit from this blackballing and learn. Being “blackballed” might have some positive effects.

There is a frame of mind that rebels at the implications of this. Should everyone conform? Should everyone play nice with others to gain some of cooperative achievements? It smacks of Big Brother or a police state; stay in line, and no one gets hurt. Perhaps in the workplace, but what about in a fraternal organization? Perhaps it is the way we go about ostracism and as stated above, how we handle our personal view of the act of exclusion that makes the difference.

Many groups are exclusionary and require requirements for admission, and not all groups should be open to all people. However, we, and I include Freemasonry in this, rarely take the time to work with people who want desperately to be part of the group. We cling to the idea that they must improve or they can’t join, and they need to do it on their own. Why should I help someone with so negative an attitude or abhorrent behavior work to become part of my “in crowd?”

Because it is not about us. It is not about ostracism but about inclusion. If we are ever to work in perfecting humanity, wouldn’t we want to step forward and help people become better? Are we, who really want to improve the world, all talk and no action? I don’t think so. I once knew a woman Freemason who said “why do all the weirdos come to us?” She was whining that everyone in her group was “not normal.” The truth is, none of us is normal, and I think that most of us want to believe that people want to improve.

If that’s the case, why wouldn’t we help people really work hard to improve themselves to make the “grade” and become one of the leaders of the perfecting of humanity? Freemasonry is about bringing together, not tearing apart. Ordo ab Chao is inclusion, not exclusion.

I listened to a recent podcast on “Whence Came You” discussing “guarding the west gate.” It was heartening to hear that all organizations, including Freemasons, have challenges about admitting quality people. There is nothing to stop us from assisting those who might not yet be worthy to become worthy.

I have seen many people who come to Freemasonry who have a true passion for the Craft, or what they know of it, and, for whatever reason, they might not meet our “qualifications.” If someone struggles with reading or writing, why wouldn’t we work with that person/applicant to bring them up to the level where they will feel comfortable and equitable in being a member? It might mean working with them on reading, or assigning them papers to write, or book reports. It might mean encouraging them to go to a college course or Toastmasters. Rather than getting to the point of blackballing or blind acceptance, we should care enough about the people who are joining us to make those efforts to help them be comfortable and share their talents.

This kind of work, though, isn’t comfortable. It takes a strong sense of leadership and communication to be the facilitator in these types of situations. The leader must know how and why they act, how to communicate well, and how to bring people to acceptance rather than denial. It takes Lodge leaders with clear direction and sense of purpose for the good of the Order, not their personal or even singular Lodge gain. It also takes a strong character of the applicant to listen to the criticism and make appropriate lifestyle changes to improve. These are the kinds of people we want to be Freemasons: those who love the craft and want to be true service workers in the name of humanity. If we can both, the facilitator and the mentee, let go of ego and stigma, there can be true growth.

What happens when we ignore this kind of calling? I was one participating in a ballot where the person was clearly not qualified for the group they were joining. They had self-esteem issues and had problems controlling their emotional responses. They were ill-prepared for what awaited them. Unfortunately, they were balloted on and approved unanimously. Unanimously. Nothing could have been more harmful for that person and for ourselves. I was left with a huge sense of guilt for throwing this person into a situation they were ill-equipped to deal with. I was left with a sense of letting down my institution, because I did not do my duty and attend to this person’s needs rather than ego. I figured, what did I know? Who was I to deny this person? In the end, it was my responsibility to care for them and for my group, letting go of my need to be “approved of” by the group or this person. I will never forget this lesson. I will now always stand up for the truth of what I see and feel, and will take that responsibility for helping my fellow man. I’ve learned that as part of the group; it is my duty.

Should it ever get to blackballing, I would hope that the person being blackballed would have the grace, virtue, courage, and zeal to listen to the criticism with an open mind and heart, and grow from that experience. I would hope they exhibit the kind of leadership that should grow into being an outstanding Freemason and contributor to humanity. I would hope that the leadership of said group would also see it as an opportunity to grow rather than to shun, to live up to their ideals, rather than work from their sense of ego, fear, or discrimination.

Blackballing should not be shunning; quite the opposite. Blackballing should be an opportunity for Freemasons, and others, to express their truth and to help improve the person being blackballed to become better than they are. If we take the stance that we do everything we can before the ballot is cast, and perhaps that ballot is the last wake up call, then it seems we have done our duty in working on ourselves and in perfecting humanity.

Entitlement: A word bandied about often by many citizens of the United States. I wanted to explore it because in a recent conversation, it was used akin to arrogance and I wasn’t sure that was correct. The word “entitlement” doesn’t appear in the English language until 1782, and I was unable to find its original source. However, in a very interesting article on Entitlement, (in a blog called Language Log), the author is investigating the question of when the term went from being a positive term to being a negative term. The article in question is here.

Specifically, we North Americans now tend to use the term in a negative way: ” a sense of entitlement” is used to discuss someone who is feeling privileged, or feeling they need special privileges when they are not due them. Additionally, the government uses it in a negative way to indicate the same thing; “entitlement programs” are seen as those programs which feed the parasites in society and are not empowering. Some elements of society tend to refer to them as “handouts.” Others see “entitlements” as a duty to care for fellow human beings.

These references and discussions leads one to see a culture that seems to be pushing the idea of activity and work as the only valid “value” in society. As a nation, we see our work as a symbol of uprightness, honesty, and strength. We see the homeless, poor, and unemployed as having done something wrong or lazy or both. If your parents instilled that value of working hard for your goals, no matter what they are, the thoughts have crossed your mind at some point in your life that someone must have done something wrong to be laid off, fired, homeless, poor, or generally in a poor state of affairs. Guaranteed. The only way one cannot feel this way is if one has been dragged through the proverbial “ringer” themselves and had to be that person who is poor, homeless, oppressed, or otherwise fallen into “bad times.”

Do we take our judgement about “entitlement” to extremes? I ask myself that often. I go to a yearly conference where dozens of people arrive to a site and live in a cooperative atmosphere for days at a time. Living in dormitory settings and eating meals family/buffet style, it’s expected that everyone participates in the setup, cleanup, and maintenance of the site. No one is exempt from this expectation except the infirm or very senior or aged attendees. In general, this seems to work very well. People are cooperative, happy to help, and understand not only the value of “many hands make light work” but also Industry or work are good for us overall. People feel better when they are participating and joining in the creation of a harmonious and giving space. When twenty people clean up, it means more time spent for everyone in other activities. The group is happy and the environment is uplifting.

You all know what I’m going to say here. There is no perfection and no paradise. There are always one or two people who struggle with these cooperative work or shared space concepts. They place all their items in the showers of the bathroom that is shared with ten people. They lock the bathroom door, restricting access for those same ten people who would also need the toilets or showers which are shared. They rarely do the dishes, and almost never look around for what work might need to be done. They don’t even ask if they can help – they just disappear for their “personal” time. After all, they’re on vacation, aren’t they?

They expect the “locals” to help the with rides, directions, or general questions and to provide assistance at a moment’s notice with little regard for what that person might actually be doing at that moment. They see other people’s time as their own, not something for which to be grateful. In short, they do not think about the other person before making their requests. They do not see the other person as valuable as they are. They may be the gentlest soul in the world, used to working hard at home; however, at these conferences, there’s a “sense of entitlement” that seems to permeate their actions.

The proper thing to do is to point this out to them and help them understand how their behavior impacts others. As a member of the community during this time, it’s my job to do that. I believe it’s all our jobs to do that. I fail. Others fail. The person continues to see their behavior as acceptable and others continue to see their behavior as intrusive and rude. This breeds resentment, gossip, and ill will. I’ve felt that resentment grow, and ask myself silently, “Don’t they see what they are doing? They are wrecking this for everyone!”

That might be a little dramatic, but the resentment does grow. I make assumptions that they are lazy, acting entitled, or just clueless. When it finally erupts, it comes off as condescending, belittling, and not very respectful of the other person. Conversely, it does no good to “ignore it.” I do not want to be that person who says “people are people” and they “will always be that way.” That’s condescending in another way; by not offering the person the person the information necessary to learn and grow, you’re saying they are not capable, intelligent human beings. You are demeaning them by dismissing the behavior. In fact, you are enablingthe entitlement.

Obviously, as I stated above, the right thing to do is to point out the behavior and talk about its impact. My general way of doing this is pointing out the behavior, listening to them and their responses, showing how it impacts others, and providing a few possible ways to approach the issue. I try to approach it as a discussion rather than an admonishment – at least the first time. Maybe even the second time. Yet, I always have that fear of bringing something up to someone and having them be upset; indeed, this is the reason most of us don’t do it in the first place. We think we are one of three things: we are not responsible, we’re acting beyond our authority, or we’re going to upset people.

Tough.

At least, that’s what I tell myself. It’s bravado and I stumble. But I have to just do it. Practice makes perfect.

The first steps are always the hardest. For me, approaching entitlement as a discussion rather than corrective behavior seems to be the right answer. I have to frame the words that come out of my mouth in such a way to help correct the situation, not inflame passions. I know that everyone doesn’t work that way; my hope is to have understanding about impact rather than to just blindly correct a behavior. If someone is chastised, they tend to only associate the behavior with that specific environment. If a discussion ensues, they see their actions in the broader context – their lives – and thus may make the leap of approaching all activities with a mindset that steers away from entitlement.

What I think is true for this conference might also be true for the wider society and our day to day lives. While we’re not living in dormitories and sharing food at every meal, I think the path of discussion rather than accusations feels more correct, more productive. Perhaps more human. I personally tend to get mad when someone expects me to jump at their call without even a “hello” or they infringe on shared space with their demands and wants. If I can take a breath and think for a moment before engaging, I might be able to leverage that “pivotal” moment and create something positive. It doesn’t always work – traffic is a great example – but I hope that I’m making progress. Thinking before speaking is always a challenge but one worth jumping into.

Not everyone will “get it.” Some of those I call out will be embarrassed enough by their actions to be mad with me for pointing it out. Some will cry and think I’m calling them awful people. Some will ignore the guidance, or hate me for being arrogant enough to think I’m better than them, or just plain shrug their shoulders and walk way. It shouldn’t stop any of us from trying to address these things that would hold us allback from being better people and better citizens. The community we strive to improve is the one with which we are actively involved; that is our friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

As Freemasons, our behavior away from our Lodge is equally as important as our time within the Lodge. We’re taught how to behave with one another, including the ability to address concerns with a fellow Brother directly and with virtue. Shouldn’t we afford the rest of our community the benefit of our lessons learned? That is part of helping humanity improve, I think. It doesn’t make it easy when the rest of the world doesn’t play by the same rules. It also doesn’t exempt us from facing the challenges and the hard work ahead. If we dislike entitlement so much, and we resent the people who fall into that mode of being, what are we doing to combat it? What are we doing to improve it, whether it is a head-to-head conversation or immersion in supporting an organization like Habitat for Humanity or mentoring for job-training programs? It behooves us to be the examples of working hard to show the meaning of real service, gratitude, and entitlement. How can we help people help themselves, instead of being victims? How does being a victim benefit anyone, personally or societally?

Maybe we can take back the word “entitlement” to mean what it initially or originally meant: “the amount to which a person has a right; the fact of having a right to something.” What is a “right,” and to what do we each have a “right?” What are your thoughts on entitlements and rights? Is a study of “the human right” in order? Or Rights in general? What do you think?

Can we communicate effectively without understanding the origin and history of our common language? The American Lexicon includes many terms that Americans utilize often without knowing where the phrase originated. The English word “lexicon” is derived from Greek words “lexis,” translated as “speech,” and “legein” translated as “to say.”

Defined as “the words used in a language or by a person or group of people,” lexicon encapsulates a multitude of words and phrases, including “Google” which most people now attribute to the search engine without realizing that the company’s name is a clever spelling of the mathematical term Googol. Coined by U.S. mathematician Edward Kasner in the late 1930s, “Googol“ is a noun meaning, “a number that is equal to 1 followed by 100 zeros.”

Freemasons are encouraged to study the Liberal Arts and Sciences: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. Grammar teaches us the system and structure of a language, including word meaning, punctuation, verb tense, and sentence structure. Proper understanding of the art of grammar provides a strong foundation for studying and mastering rhetoric, or the art of persuasion. Rhetoric can understood as the ability to communicate effectively through the establishment of common ground between speaker and listener. Is the study of etymology an integral component in mastering the arts of grammar and rhetoric?

The study of etymology provides an enhanced ability to understand and communicate, thus improving our grammatical and rhetorical skills. By studying grammar through the lens of etymology, one begins to see patterns and gain understanding about the development of the English language. Comprehending the history of words and phrases helps to establish rhetorical ethos allowing for appeals to the audience’s beliefs, history, morals, or ideals. Studying etymology, including a phrase’s history, original meaning, and present usage, can provide clarification of meaning that can be otherwise lost or misconstrued by the passage of time.

The American Lexicon: Ground Zero

After September 11, 2001, the term “Ground Zero” was permanently affixed to the tragedy at the World Trade Center. Few people realize that the term was originally coined by the physicists of the Manhattan Project at the U.S. Atomic Bomb testing site in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Known under the code name Trinity, the test was the first detonation of a nuclear weapon conducted by the United States Army on July 16, 1945. The phrase, however, did not enter the American Lexicon until the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a June 1946 report, the phrase “Ground Zero” was used to describe the spot on the ground directly underneath the aerial detonation of the atomic bombs: the spot in the air was called “air zero” and the spot on the ground was called “ground zero.” Following World War II, the report received tremendous attention from the press and the public. Becoming part of the lexicon, the general public used the term in reference to a nuclear bomb during the years of the Cold War.

In the latter part of 20th Century, “Ground Zero” was symbolically expanded to mean the “center of an explosion” or the site of activity where an explosion has occurred. American Language Expert, Ben Zimmer, explained that during this period the phrase, “developed a kind of metaphorical meaning. Some people used it to mean, basically, the same thing as square one. So, back to ground zero, back to the original place.”

When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the press referred to the site as “Ground Zero,” and so it was already attributed to the World Trade Towers prior to 9/11. An ABC News Correspondent, John Miller was the first person to use the term in 2001. As a former deputy police commissioner of New York City, he was on scene reporting by 1:25 p.m. that day. Interviewing police officers he stated, “these are the stories of people who were there at ground zero when the first building fell.” The phrase was repeated in the evening broadcasts on the 11th, and it quickly became part of the American Lexicon used to describe the site of bombings in New York City.

The American Lexicon: The Bikini

Popularized by the actress Annette Funicello in the 1963 film “ Beach Party,” the ladies’ swimsuit known as the “Bikini” is well known in America. Although today the Bikini is ubiquitous within American culture, many people are unaware that the bikini also derives its name from a nuclear explosion. In the 1940s, Louis Réard, a French aspiring fashion designer, entrepreneur, and mechanical engineer, noticed that women on the beaches of St. Tropez were rolling up the edges of their swimsuits to get a better tan. Mr. Réard was inspired to design and produce a swimsuit with less fabric which exposed the wearer’s navel for the first time. His bikini consisted of four triangles made from 30 square inches of fabric.

Holding a press conference to unveil his work, Louis Réard introduced his design to the media and public on July 5, 1946, in Paris at Piscine Molitor, a public pool in Paris. Réard named his creation the “bikini,” inspired by the explosion of an atomic bomb by the U.S. Military at the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean five days earlier. The first nuclear weapon tests since Trinity in New Mexico, the United States tested two nuclear weapons at the Bikini Atoll under the name Operation Crossroads. The purpose of the tests was to investigate the effect of nuclear weapons on warships, and Operation Crossroads was the first nuclear test to be publicly announced and attended by a live audience including a large press corps. A fleet of 95 target ships was assembled in Bikini Lagoon and hit with two detonations of Fat Man plutonium implosion-type nuclear weapons, each yielding 23 kilotons of TNT. With a large press corps in attendance, the nuclear testing at the Bikini Atoll was a huge international press event with obvious impacts on popular culture and the international lexicon.

Réard reportedly termed his swimsuit the “bikini” because he believed its revealing style would create reactions among people similar to those created by the explosion of a nuclear bomb. His belief proved accurate as the “bikini” shocked the press and public because it was the first to reveal the woman’s navel. Less than a month after the swimsuit was unveiled to the public, the U.S. military conducted the second atomic test of Operation Crossroads at the Bikini Atoll and named the bomb Helen of Bikini, which was detonated 90 feet underwater on July 25, 1946.

Whether the U.S. Military named the bomb in reference to Réard’s creation is unclear. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Greek women wore two-piece swimsuits, resembling the “bikini,” for athletic purposes, as depicted on Greek urns and paintings dating back to 1400 B.C. Regardless, the American public was shocked by the navel-revealing “bikini” and the swimsuit was not worn by the general public until the 1960s.

The American Lexicon: Meeting on the Level

Freemasonry was founded on the principal of the equality of all of mankind, symbolically illustrated by the builder’s tool of a level. Although the phrase, “Meeting on the Level,” is less commonly heard in today’s vernacular, it was once a staple of the American Lexicon. Today, Americans are more likely to use the expression, “meeting on a level playing field,” which denotes a situation where neither party has an advantage over the other.

In sports where the game operates on a playing field, such as Football, one team would have an unfair advantage if the field sloped in one direction. In order to make things equal or level regardless of any defects in a playing field, it is customary in American sports for teams to swap ends of the playing field at half-time.

In American Politics, the concept of a level playing field is often referenced in Presidential speeches regarding individuals’ access to education, employment, and health-care. On September 2, 2004, Former U.S. President George W. Bush used the phrase stating, “To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe.” Similarly, President Barack Obama often discusses the importance of a “level playing field.” In a speech given on January 30, 2009, he expressed, “We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests, because we know that you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement.”